On March 01 2011 03:14 gogogadgetflow wrote: UPDATE: The movie was screened to a private audience on February 25th to create some buzz. The reviews by Rand supporters were generally glowing. Here is one:
The skeptics are wrong. The completed film was shown today for the first time in a private screening. It is simply beautiful. With a screenplay faithful to the narrative and message of the novel, the adaptation is lushly produced. The acting, cinematography, and score create a powerful experience of the story.
Obviously if you are a detractor of Ayn Rand you probably won't enjoy a faithful adaptation. Sorry. But I think a wider scope of people will agree with Kelly that "This film is going to turbocharge the debate over Rand’s vision of capitalism as a moral ideal." Considering the film comes out on tax day while collective bargainers conduct a circus in several states it seems like something of a perfect storm for an objectivist debate.
Finally, check out this scene. If you have read the book, does it capture the moment well? For me it really does. I love the music, the acting, the production - It really gets me hyped.
Check out the reactions of other people who actually care in the comments section at the movie promotion site
Sorry for double posting, but I didnt want one ginormous post.
Ive read the book twice, and I really really dont like this clip. They got the dialogue right, but the emotion (especially on Hank's part) is just way waaay off. He was not THAT confident in front of his family that early in the book, he felt a lot of guilt and shame and he was more reclusive, he had more pauses where he didnt quite know what to say or how to react. I didnt see any of that, instead Hank was just going (psh lol wutever noobs *goes to work*)
Another little thing that got me is when Philip asked for money.. that whole sequence was like half accurate, but the little thing that gets me is that (im pretty sure) Hank didnt know anything about that organization Philip was with in the book because he didnt keep with with the newer social movements, he was just focused on business.
The production is really good looking, but I think its gonna be pretty misrepresented overall.
On February 14 2011 04:32 TheBlueMeaner wrote: Bioshock was supposed to have been inspired by this novel, but it really does not resemble anything at all...
Bioshock was inspired by Atlas Shrugged in that the entirety of the game was a scathing criticism of what was proposed by Ayn Rand in her book.
I dont think it was a "scathing criticism" of the book.
If you piece everything together (especially listening to Andrew Ryan's audio logs towards the end) I think the developers were trying to show what would happen if you implemented that kind of society into the real world, given how we really act. Andrew had the best of intentions for the city, but the general population misinterpreted his ideals, and took his elitism too seriously, so the city fell into chaos. They took self-absorption too far.
I would give better examples, but its been like 2 years since ive played through it, but I think the devs like the concept of Atlas Shrugged, but wanted to show the big holes in it. The amount of effort they put into the game gives me that impression.
The perfection required to make that society possible is far beyond our ability right now, which Atlas Shrugged takes for granted that the tip top of producers and business men have that perfection. I mean, yeah you could run a perfect society if its filled with nothing but demi-gods who are (basically) omniscient. I do agree with Thoreau when he says that a society needs to have a common direction with its people in order to function, but good luck finding a handful of people with tons of resources who want to work together to make a great society and not backstab the other ones for "irrational" reasons. Overall, humanity is too young to play nice on a large scale.
The Idealist in me looks to China and hopes that it can foster a second wave of human industriousness for the sake of industriousness.
On February 14 2011 04:32 TheBlueMeaner wrote: Bioshock was supposed to have been inspired by this novel, but it really does not resemble anything at all...
Bioshock was inspired by Atlas Shrugged in that the entirety of the game was a scathing criticism of what was proposed by Ayn Rand in her book.
I dont think it was a "scathing criticism" of the book.
If you piece everything together (especially listening to Andrew Ryan's audio logs towards the end) I think the developers were trying to show what would happen if you implemented that kind of society into the real world, given how we really act. Andrew had the best of intentions for the city, but the general population misinterpreted his ideals, and took his elitism too seriously, so the city fell into chaos. They took self-absorption too far.
I would give better examples, but its been like 2 years since ive played through it, but I think the devs like the concept of Atlas Shrugged, but wanted to show the big holes in it. The amount of effort they put into the game gives me that impression.
The perfection required to make that society possible is far beyond our ability right now, which Atlas Shrugged takes for granted that the tip top of producers and business men have that perfection. I mean, yeah you could run a perfect society if its filled with nothing but demi-gods who are (basically) omniscient. I do agree with Thoreau when he says that a society needs to have a common direction with its people in order to function, but good luck finding a handful of people with tons of resources who want to work together to make a great society and not backstab the other ones for "irrational" reasons. Overall, humanity is too young to play nice on a large scale.
The Idealist in me looks to China and hopes that it can foster a second wave of human industriousness for the sake of industriousness.
Yeah I see some issues with the enormous heavy-handed authoritarian government there.
It is just so disappointing that an objectivist society would be so hard to realize in practice. Right now we are stuck at some mean between socialism and capitalism/objectivism when either extreme would probably be a better society.
I guess the advantage to being an objectivist in today's society as opposed to a socialist is that an objectivist is robbed while a socialist must loot or starve.
The book was terrible, why would they make a movie out of it? Even if you agree with the "philosophy" behind it, the writing was still goddamn awful. The plot went nowhere for like 500 pages, then concluded with a 30-page long speech. The characters were all flat and one-dimensional. I can't see a good movie coming from this at all..
Watch a movie about a bunch of Mary Sue Demigods who somehow can think rationally without any emotion or irrationality subverting their though process, sign me up. I love realism. I just want to know if the movie goes through and justifies why everyone who dies in the train crash deserved to die like in the book. I mean how much of a monster can you be to justify someones death because they don't share your philosophy?
Here is a good review of the book:
"Ayn Rand's characters are almost completely defined by the extent to which they embrace her beliefs. A good guy by definition is someone who agrees with her; a bad guy someone who dares to have a different point of view. For all the lip-service Rand pays to individualism, she brooks no dissent from her heroes; none of her so-called individualists ever expresses a point of view significantly different from hers.
To illustrate the gulf between Rand's characters and human reality, consider this behavior. When Dagny Taggart meets Hank Rearden, she dutifully becomes his property, for no other reason than that he's the most Randian male around. When John Galt arrives, ownership of the prize female transfers from Rearden to Galt, because Galt is the more Randian of the two. Does it ever occur to Hank to be resentful or jealous? Does Taggart experience loyalty or regret? Might Taggart love Rearden despite his lesser Randness? No, those are all things that human beings might feel.
(In a related departure from reality, sex in Randland is more or less indistinguishable from rape. Foreplay? Romance? Capitalists don't have time for that commie nonsense.)
The real focus of Atlas Shrugged is to extoll Rand's philosophy. (Not to debate it, since no one in Randland with any any intelligence or competence could have a different point of view.) About Rand's philosophy I'll just make two points (which I'm not going to bother providing evidence for at the moment).
The first is that, like most social Darwinists, Rand fell short in her understanding of natural selection. Her philosophy was largely based on the false belief that nature invariably favors individual selfishness. In reality, evolution has made homo sapiens a social animal; cooperation and compassion are very human traits. More importantly, even if cold selfishness were man's nature in the wild, it would not necessarily follow that that would be the best way for us to behave in our semi-civilized modern condition.
The second point is that, contrary to Rand's belief, pure laissez-faire capitalism never works; it invariably leads to exploitation of the poor and middle class and to environmental catastrophe. The best economic system that has ever been devised -- so far -- is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. (less)"
On April 13 2011 10:23 Jswizzy wrote: Watch a movie about a bunch of Mary Sue Demigods who somehow can think rationally without any emotion or irrationality subverting their though process, sign me up. I love realism. I just want to know if the movie goes through and justifies why everyone who dies in the train crash deserved to die like in the book. I mean how much of a monster can you be to justify someones death because they don't share your philosophy?
Once again someone gets things wrong to justify their ideology.
It's not that they deserved to die because of their philosophy... The point was, the REASON they died was because of their philosophy. You can't run trains without an economy or a company that can maintain them. When the economy fails, society fails, and deaths will follow. That's the point.
Capitalism, with all it's flaws, has created an increase in the wealth of mankind. This doesn't just mean shallow materialism, it means modern medicine with it's cures for diseases, and better hygiene, and longer life expectancy, etc. It means less work and suffering, greater safety, in a word, progress.
On April 13 2011 10:23 Jswizzy wrote: Watch a movie about a bunch of Mary Sue Demigods who somehow can think rationally without any emotion or irrationality subverting their though process, sign me up. I love realism. I just want to know if the movie goes through and justifies why everyone who dies in the train crash deserved to die like in the book. I mean how much of a monster can you be to justify someones death because they don't share your philosophy?
Once again someone gets things wrong to justify their ideology.
It's not that they deserved to die because of their philosophy... The point was, the REASON they died was because of their philosophy. You can't run trains without an economy or a company that can maintain them. When the economy fails, society fails, and deaths will follow. That's the point.
Capitalism, with all it's flaws, has created an increase in the wealth of mankind. This doesn't just mean shallow materialism, it means modern medicine with it's cures for diseases, and better hygiene, and longer life expectancy, etc. It means less work and suffering, greater safety, in a word, progress.
Nope she killed off anyone who disagreed with her philosophy. Just face it Rand was the equivalent of Stalin when it came to anyone who challenged her philosophy in her books.
Jswizzy, if you aren't interested in the movie I won't even make you go.
However it's pretty clear you don't really understand Objectivism/Laissez-faire. It is *not* the same as Social Darwinism.
Social Darwinist perspectives fail to realize that man has the ability to produce what he needs to survive. Instead of fighting with each other for scarce resources, men can create abundant goods to satisfy their needs. That is why you will not be able to find a historical example of pure laissez-faire capitalism as detrimental to of any class in society.
You also may not understand that there is plenty of room in laissez-faire capitalism for benevolence and generosity - except that it is voluntary at all times. You are right that people are social animals, and you may need to read again to see that Ayn Rand's heroes were commited to production and spread values, not sacrifice and death.
In short, Social Darwinism is an argument against socialism, but not for laissez-faire capitalism.
On April 13 2011 10:22 iamho wrote: The book was terrible, why would they make a movie out of it? Even if you agree with the "philosophy" behind it, the writing was still goddamn awful. The plot went nowhere for like 500 pages, then concluded with a 30-page long speech. The characters were all flat and one-dimensional. I can't see a good movie coming from this at all..
To be fair, one-dimensional simplicities suit the political leanings of the book quite well. If anything, it's written perfectly, considering.
On April 13 2011 11:04 Lochat wrote: As someone with a degree in philosophy, please never call Ayn Rand a philosopher. Thank you.
A philosopher is "a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields"
Like all philosophers worth their salt, Rand developed a specific understanding (Objectivism) of Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics. You can't exclude someone from the philosophy club simply because you don't agree with his/her views.
On April 13 2011 11:19 gogogadgetflow wrote: Like all philosophers worth their salt, Rand developed a specific understanding (Objectivism) of Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics. You can't exclude someone from the philosophy club simply because you don't agree with his/her views.
That's fine but then your group of philosophers also contains Bill Hicks and Sam Kinison. So maybe the club isn't so elite all the time.
On April 13 2011 11:19 gogogadgetflow wrote: Like all philosophers worth their salt, Rand developed a specific understanding (Objectivism) of Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics. You can't exclude someone from the philosophy club simply because you don't agree with his/her views.
That's fine but then your group of philosophers also contains Bill Hicks and Sam Kinison. So maybe the club isn't so elite all the time.
Aren't you the guy who was in this thread 2 months ago just trolling?
I loved reading the Fountainhead and I thought the movie was pretty good too (the movie of Fountainhead), considering what it had to try and follow up.
For some reason I've tried starting Atlas Shrugged twice and didn't stay with it. I have to get into it though because I feel it's be worth the read, and of course watch the movie afterwards.
On April 13 2011 11:19 gogogadgetflow wrote: Like all philosophers worth their salt, Rand developed a specific understanding (Objectivism) of Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics. You can't exclude someone from the philosophy club simply because you don't agree with his/her views.
That's fine but then your group of philosophers also contains Bill Hicks and Sam Kinison. So maybe the club isn't so elite all the time.
Aren't you the guy who was in this thread 2 months ago just trolling?
And regardless of whether he did (I have no idea), that makes his point less valid how?
Actually don't worry I don't know what i'm doing trying to have any sort of reasonable debate with an objectivist it's like talking to a brick wall of unrealistic rhetoric where all the answers to any criticism revolve around this bizarre idea that somehow the free market will choose the one group of people who aren't subject to misusing power like all the other authoritarian and aristocratic governments over the years. I mean if the political philosophy based off making all men equal and helping each other out at the cost of oneself ended up as a huge clusterfuck of corruption, purging and collapse, why on earth do people think one based off selfishness and greed is going to result in anything better?
To this question I shall receive the same tired response taking offence to the implication of similarity and then casually avoiding the question while focusing on some side issue I never mentioned.
Looks like a movie for conservatives to circle jerk to. The sheer amount of elitism in the story is just hilarious. Anyone who thinks they're irreplaceable is basically a delusional idiot. The only people who come close are brilliant scientists, but even then they can be replaced as well and there will be smarter people in the future, and have been smarter people in the past.
On April 13 2011 21:04 Ocedic wrote: Looks like a movie for conservatives to circle jerk to. The sheer amount of elitism in the story is just hilarious. Anyone who thinks they're irreplaceable is basically a delusional idiot. The only people who come close are brilliant scientists, but even then they can be replaced as well and there will be smarter people in the future, and have been smarter people in the past.
Yes! And even scientists are screwed since in Randland they would need money to be heavily backed/supported and be "moochers" since they do not "produce" in the black-and-white stupid Rand way of pure money generation.
Embracing Randian "philosophy" is the path of the glorified use car salesman of the 20th+ century who didn't leave their ego behind in 11th grade. They need to believe pushing mortgages and bundles of shares is "producing" and important or they would just self-end.
EPT
